|E 210 

S68 
I Copy 1 




THE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION WAS FOUGHT. 



RUFUS B. SMITH. 



THE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION WAS FOUGHT 



AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE OHIO SOCIETY SONS OF THE 
REVOLUTION 

DELIVERED AT THE QUEEN CITY CLUB. CINCINNATI, OHIO FEBRUARY 22, 1904 



BY 

RUFUS B. SMITH 



^%o^ 



210 

■ Sfeg 



ISIft fpom 
Wrs. Marcus Benjamin 
Dec. 5, 1932 



Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Ohio Society Sons of the 

Revolution : 

The incorporators of the Society of the Sons of the Revolution, 
in their announcement of the reasons for the formation of the 
society, declared that they sought "to develop and nourish a 
true patriotism and an honorable pride of lineage among those 
whose ancestors distinguished themselves in the perilous days 
of our national struggle for independence ; ' ' that our ancestors 
' ' did their part ; they gave us the start ; it is for us to keep up 
the impulse, and in no manner can we better further their work 
than by informing ourselves of what they did." 

The announcement concludes with this appeal : 

"Let this Society, by drinking in the spirit of our ancestors 
strive, not as the Romans did for the mastery of the whole world, 
but for the mastery of everything ignoble among us; for purity 
of governnn'nt. honesty in office and wisdom in our nation's 
councils. ' ' 

These selections from the announcement of the purpose to be 
accomplished by this organization are made to justify the selec- 
tion of the subject to-night, by showing that the selection has 
been made in conformity to both the letter and the spirit of 
such announcement. 

To appreciate the effect upon the minds of the American 
colonists of the English legislation, which was the immediate 
cause of the American Revolution, it is necessary, in a general 
way at least, to understand the surroundings and the character 
of the life of the colonists ; the struggles for freedom in England 
which preceded the colonial settlements; and the relationship, 
not only political but also personal and industrial, which the 
colonists bore to the people of the mother country. 

During the entire colonial period the people were largely 
alike in their condition in society. "The inhabitants were all 
of one rank. There were neither kings, nobles or bishops." 
There was no poverty and no affluence. They were mostly farm- 
ers owning and cultivating their own farms; except in the 
southern colonies where slavery flourished. Yet history shows 
that no peoi)le are so jealous of their rights nor so insistent upon 
liberty as slaveholders, who regard liberty as "not only an en- 
ployment but a kind of rank and privilege," 



They lived and labored in a land which for the first time felt 
the hand of civilized man. Surrounded by virgin forests, fertile 
fields, mountains of commanding appearance, pure streams and 
splendid rivers, they came to regard freedom as the natural con- 
dition of man, and looked up only to nature and to nature's 
God. 

They lived a simple life, free from the weakening and narrow- 
ing influences of the artificialities and conventionalities of a 
thickly settled community; and became inured to labor and to 
self-denial. 

Yet the material side of life, engrossing as it was, was not 
for them the whole of life. The spiritual side was all important 
to them. While various motives were influential in promoting 
the early settlement of the country, yet the motive which over- 
shadowed all others was a religious one ; and we find the best 
illustrations of this fact in the settlement of New England on 
the north by the Puritans, and of Maryland on the south by the 
Catholics. 

It is not surprising, therefore, that in those early days the 
influence of the church was the one to which all others was 
subordinate; and ihat the clergyman as typifying the religious 
spirit was tlie most influential person in the community. 

I shall not attempt an analysis of the religious spirit of this 
age, for it would not be pertinent to the purpose I have in 
mind. It is sufficient to say, that whatever its shortcomings, it 
was a spirit which sought righteousness and justice; that it 
walked according to the light that was given to it; and that it 
sought to subordinate things worldly and temporal to things 
spiritual. While it had its dreams of empire, as all ages have 
had, it was an empire to be ruled by the Cross, and over which 
the Prince of Peace, with the Gospel of Peace on Earth, Good 
Will towards all, was to hold undisputed sway. 

The colonists found time also to read, and while their reading 
did not embrace many books, such as they did read were of a 
thoughtful and serious character. 

In plain living and high thinking, in willingness to make sac- 
rifices and encounter self-denials for high ideals, no people at 
that time, probably, were the equal of the American colonists. 

The intercourse of trade between England and her colonies 
was not so great as to make any close connection between them, 



their foreign trade, for the most part, being with the Spanish 
and French colonies of the West Indies. 

The distance, too, from the mother country of three thousand 
miles, to be traversed only by sailing vessels, still further weak- 
ened any feeling of dependence on the part of the colonies 
toward the mother country. 

The patronage of the Crown in America was so slight, that 
this baneful source of influence, by which men nominally free 
are held in a sort of servile subjection, was absent; and the 
personal affection for the sovereign at the time of the Revolu- 
tion had almost entirely disappeared, for the reason that the 
colonists of that time were removed from the original emigrants 
by several generations. The recognition of the kingly preroga- 
tive grew weaker as the years passed by. 

The colonies were founded under grants made at different 
times by different English sovereigns; and all of the colonies, 
with the exception of Georgia, which was made a separate 
province in 1732, obtained their charters between the years 
1603 and 1688, a period of time which has been made memorable 
in English history for the great struggle by the English people 
against the doctrine of the divine right of kings; a period when 
Charles I. lost his head on the block for attempting to lev}' 
shipmoney and other revenues without the consent of Parlia- 
ment, and for other infringements on the rights of Englishmen; 
and when the people, tiring of the reigning family's continuetl 
assertions of prerogative and encroachments on the I'ights of 
the people, deposed it and placed William of Orange upon the 
throne. 

Out of these struggles between the English people and their 
kings came this famous statement of the fundamental principles 
of English liberty, known as the Declaration of Rights, written 
not only on parchment, but for all time in the minds and hearts 
of the English people : 

"That it was the undoubted right of English subjects, being 
freemen or freeholders, to give their property only by their own 
consent. That the House of Commons exercised the sole right 
of granting the money of the people of England, because that 
house alone represented them. That taxes were the free gifts 
of the people to their rulers. That the authority of sovereigns 
was to be exercised only for the good of their subjects. That 
it was the right of the people to meet together and peaceably to 



consider of their grievances, to petition for a redress of them, 
and finally, when intolerable grievances were unredressed, to 
seek relief, on the failure of petitions and remonstrances, by 
forcible means;" and the colonists never for a moment doubted 
that these fundamental principles of government were as ap- 
plicable to them as to the people of England. 

While their charters, granted at different times, were in many 
respects widely different, yet in every charter, with the excep- 
tion of that of Pennsylvania, was found this declaration: ''That 
the emigrants to America should enjoy the same privileges as if 
they had remained or had been within the realm." 

Although the Pennsylvania charter did not contain this lan- 
guage, it was nevertheless argued b}^ Dr. Franklin, when at the 
bar of the House of Commons, that a correct interpretation of 
the language of the grant to that colony guaranteed to it the 
same privileges as the other colonies. 

The government of the colonies, while not entirely in the 
hands of the colonists, yet was in their control to such an extent 
as to prevent the passage of an,y laws, affecting their internal 
government, to which they objected. They chose most of their 
officers and paid all of them. The laws passed by them could 
be vetoed by the King and they submitted to laws passed by 
Parliament regulating their external trade. But those laws were 
not strictly enforced, and practically their burden was very 
light. 

It is true that Great Britain sought to monopolize the trade 
of the colonies, and passed laws forbidding therein the manu- 
facture of certain articles which came in conflict with the same 
articles manufactured in Great Britain ; and also passed laws 
imposing duties upon the trade between the colonies and other 
countries, for the purpose of compelling the colonists to trade 
with her; but she never sought to secure a revenue from them. 

But the laws with respect to manufactures, in a country 
largely agricultural in its life, bore so lightly that the colonists 
made no issue with England in regard to them; and the laws 
with respect to trading with other countries, especially with the 
French and Spanish colonies of the West Indies, were enforced 
with such laxity, that their evasion was rather a matter of 
course, and occasioned no quarrel between the colonists and the 
mother country. 



We now approach the critical period which preceded the 
Revolution. 

The Peace of Paris in 1763 conchided the war between Great 
Britain and France, and Great Britain found herself with a debt 
of one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, a large part of 
which had been incurred in the late war in defending the 
colonies; and British statesmen urged that it was but fair that 
the colonies should assist in bearing a small part of this debt, 
and should also contribute towards providing money to sup- 
port a standing army in the colonies for their defense. 

Prior to this time Great Britain had never exercised the 
power to levy direct taxes upon the colonies. But from this 
time, during a period of thirteen years, a series of laws of in- 
creasing severity, were passed. The first laws were based upon 
the principle that Great Britain could levy taxes in the colonies 
without their consent; and the later laws were based upon the 
principle that Great Britain could pass any law with reference 
to the colonies that she saw fit to pass. 

In 1764 an act was passed which allowed trade in most ar- 
ticles from the French and Spanish colonies, but imposed such 
heavy duties upon them as to become almost prohibitive. The 
revenue arising from these duties was to be paid to the King, 
to be disposed of by Parliament for the purpose of defending 
and protecting the colonies. 

" 'Till that act passed, no act avowedly for the purpose of 
revenue and with the ordinary title and recital of such was to 
be found in the parliamentary statute book." 

The momentous period which culminated in revolution and in- 
dependence had begun. The passage of this law was followed 
by an attempt at strict enforcement by numerous officials, and 
by a trial of cases falling under the law in Courts of Admiralty, 
in which a trial by jury was denied; and the irritation and in- 
dignation on the part of the colonists was very great. 

In 1765 Mr. Greenville, the Prime Minister, had passed the 
famous Stamp Act. It provided that all instruments of writing 
should be null and void unless executed on stamped paper or 
parchment. The proceeds were to be paid into the King's 
treasury and were to be applied under the direction of Parlia- 
ment exclusively to the protection and defense of the colonies. 

The feeling engendered by the passage of this law was so 
great in the colonies, and by reason of the agreement by the 



6 

colonists not to nso such stamps, nor to plead their absence in 
court, the law yielded so insig'nifieant a revenue that Parliament 
considered it wise, in 1766, to repeal it. In repealing it, how- 
ever. Parliament did not recede from its claim of right to pass 
the act, but distinctly declared in part of the repealing law, 
known as the Declaratory Act, "That the Parliament had, and 
of right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases 
whatsoever. ' ' 

In 1767 Charles Townshend had passed by Parliament three 
acts of far-reaching consequences. By one act the legislative 
functions of the New York Assembly were temporarily sus- 
})ended. By another a Board of Commissioners of Customs was 
established in America for the purpose of superintending the 
execution of the laws relating to trade ; and by the third a duty 
was imposed on all glass, lead, painter's colors, paper and tea 
imported into the colonies. 

The revenues derived from these duties was to be employed 
in paying the salaries of the governors and judges in America, 
thus making these otScers independent of the colonial assem- 
blies, and the surplus, if any, was to be applied in defraying 
the expense of an English Army to defend the colonies. 

The feeling created in America by the passage of these laws 
was so great that English troops were sent to Massachusetts to 
assist the officers of the Crown in the enforcement of the laws, 
an act regarded by the colonists as highly offensive and subver- 
sive of their rights and liberties. 

In 1769 both houses of Parliament passed a joint resolution 
beseeching the King to have all persons in the colonies charged 
with treason sent to England to be tried, thus depriving such 
persons of the right of trial by jury at their own homes. 

In 1770 the non-importation agreement among the colonists 
having reduced the imports to so great an extent as to cripple 
the British manufacturers of the articles covered by the Act 
of 1767, that Act was repealed as to all articles except tea, which 
was retained largely as an evidence of right to tax the colonies. 

In 1773 the East India Company, which had accumulated a 
large stock of tea on its hands by reason of the refusal of the 
colonists to drink tea, procured an act of Parliament by which 
they were relieved of the export duty in shipping the tea out 
of England, and thus were enabled to land it in America, after 
paying the import duty, cheaper than the American merchants 



could do. The company then shipped large (luaiitities of it to 
America. The Americans feared that the importation of this 
tea, wliich could be sold at a low price, might have a tendency 
to weaken the res( lution of the colonists not to consume tea, and 
determined not to permit its landing. In Philadelphia and 
New York the importers were not allowed to land it, but at Bos- 
ton, after the people had refused to allow the tea to land, the 
Royal Governor refused to allow the ships to return to England, 
and they stood in the harbor some time, when by a concerted 
plan of the people of Boston the vessels were boarded and the 
entire cargo of tea, consisting of three hundred and forty- 
two chests was thrown into the sea. 

This action with respect to the tea was followed by the passage 
of the Boston Port Act, which was intended to cripple the 
business of Boston by virtually blocking it up; for it was de- 
nied the privilege of landing or shipping goods, wares or mer- 
chandise, and by the same act Salem, supposed to be a rival city, 
was made the port of entry. 

The Boston Port Act was followed by the passage of three 
others laws of the most radical character based upon the theory 
that Parliament had the power at will to change the charters 
of any of the colonies. By the first act the council or second 
branch of the Legislature in Massachusetts, formerly elected 
by the General Assembly which was elected by the people, was 
to be appointed by the King, and the Royal Governor was to 
appoint and remove all .judges and other minor officers. Town 
meetings, except for the choice of officers, were forbidden, with- 
out permission of the Governor; and provision was made for 
transporting to England for trial offenders and witnesses. Al- 
though the Boston Port Act was aimed to cripple Boston only 
and the last three acts just described related only to Massachu- 
setts, they created as much indignation in the other colonies as 
in JMassachusetts, for the reason that if such legislation could 
be enacted by Parliament with respect to Massachusetts, it could 
and in time, doubtless, would be enacted for the other colonies. 
I have thus briefly enumerated the legislation by Great Brit- 
tain which was regarded by the American colonists as a violation 
of their rights, in order that the principles for which each side 
contended may be the more clearly understood. 

A small minority of Englishmen, typified by the Earl of 
Chatham, took the position that the Parliament of England 



8 

had a certain legislative control over the whole British Empire, 
and, therefore, empowered to pass laws designed to regulate 
the trade of the Empire, but that the right to levy taxes in the 
colonies for the purpose of revenue could rest solely with the 
colonists. They drew a line between external taxation for the 
purpose of commerce and internal taxation for the purpose of 
revenue. Another small minority, typified by Edmund Burke, 
took the position that the legal rights of Great Britain in 
the matter were unimportant; as a wise and statesmenlike 
policy dictated a course of conciliation in dealing with the 
colonies and the enactment only of such legislation as would 
make them satisfied and contented, and, therefore, loyal sub- 
jects of the Empire. But the position of the King and of the 
great majority of Parliament and the English people was ex- 
pressed in the Declaratory Act, which was a part of the law 
repealing the Stamp Act : ' ' That the Parliament had, and of 
right ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases 
whatsoever. ' ' 

It is popularly assumed in this country that Great Britain, 
in the passage of the laws which have been described, was 
plainly and flagrantly guilty of a violation of the rights of the 
colonists under the British Constitution. 

I shall not undertake to express a legal opinion upon that 
question. It is undoubtedly true, however, that a strong argu- 
ment from the purely legal standpoint, based upon precedent 
and the language of the colonial charters, can be made in 
favor of the British claim; and the decided preponderance of 
opinion among English lawyers, of whom the great lawyer, 
Lord Mansfield, was one, was in favor of the legality of such 
legislation ; and there is much to be said against the distinction 
between external and internal taxation having a sound basis 
in law or in fact. Is not the regulation of commerce and trade, 
and the prohibition of manufactures, quite as much a tax, al- 
though an indirect one, as a tax more direct in form? 

It can also be truthfully said on behalf of the British claim, 
from the moral standpoint, that the money which Great Britain 
sought to raise in the colonies by direct taxation was not in- 
tended to be spent in England, as is popularly supposed in this 
country, but was to be spent solely in the colonies for colonial 
purposes. 



It has been generally assmned, too, that the attempt to force 
this legislation upon the colonists was the work of George III. 
and his ministers, and that the blame for the American revo- 
lution rests solely upon them. But this is an entirely mistaken 
assumption. For "Loyal addresses from cities and corporations, 
from churchmen and dissenters, from the great seats of learn- 
ing, from all parts of the kingdom, indorsed the coercive policy 
and showed a sentiment strongly in sympathy with the King." 

The student of these momentous days of the eighteenth cen- 
tury is not surprised to find the king and his ministers, the 
aristocracy and all the various representatives of vested powers 
in State and Church ranged on the side of kingly prerogative 
and unlimited power over the American colonists; yet he is 
struck with amazement to find the plain i)eopIe of England, 
who were themselves always jealous of the encroachments of 
arbitrary power on their own rights, in league with the king 
and parliament to deprive another people of their rights. The 
explanation is found in the memorable speech of Edmund 
Burke at Bristol in 1780, when he said: "It is but too true 
that the love and the very idea of genuine liberty is extremely 
rare. It is but too true that there are many whose whole scheme 
of freedom is made up of pride, perverseness and insolence. 
They feel themselves in a state of thralldom, they imagine that 
their souls are cooped and cabined in, unless they have some man, 
a body of men, dependent on their mercy. The desire of having 
someone below them descends to those who are the very lowest 
of all. * * * This disposition is the true source of the 
passion v.'hich many men in very humble life have taken to the 
American war. Our subjects in America, our colonies, our 
possessions ! This lust of party power is the liberty they 
hunger for and thirst for. and this siren song of Ambition has 
charmed ears that we would have thought were never organ- 
ized to that sort of music." 

At the beginning of the controversy between England and 
the colonists the latter were disposed to concede a legislative 
power over them in the king and parliament with respect to 
external affairs; and that the king and parliament, under such 
power, had the right to pass laws regulating trade between the 
different parts of the empire. But from the outset the colonists 
insisted that the king and parliament could pass no law with 



10 

respect to their internal affairs, such as the levy of a tax, with- 
out their consent. 

The argument in support of their position was based in part 
upon the language of their charters, which declared they were 
to have the same privileges as if they had remained within the 
realm; and, as no tax could be levied upon an Englishman ex- 
cept by Parliament, in which he was represented, and as the 
colonists had no representatives in Parliament, no tax could 
be levied by Parliament upon them, but only by their own 
assemblies, which were representative of them. They also stood 
upon the broad ground that they had inherited the rights they 
contended for as the descendants of Englishmen. 

Colonial precedent was also in favor of their claim, as prior 
to 1763 all internal taxes had been levied by the colonial as- 
semblies. Franklin said that, by the claim to tax, England 
deprived Americans of their property, and, by the claim to 
alter charters and laws at will, she deprived them of all priv- 
ileges and rights whatever. 

As the controversy continued, and the English government 
took the position that it had power to enact any legislation 
vnth respect to the colonists that it saw fit, the colonists, in 
their discussions, in their meetings, in their public addresses 
and State papers, were forced to place their claim upon broader 
grounds than precedent and the language of colonial charters, 
and to examine the very foundations of all government, and 
to determine M'hat right one people had to govern another. 

Their contest became not solely their own, but a contest for 
humanity and democracy. They contended that kings had but 
delegated authority which the people might resume, because 
the King's sovereignty was a grant from the people, and that 
the rights of the people were inherent and not gifts from the 
King: "that God made all mankind originally equal; that he 
endowed them with the rights of life, property and as much 
liberty as was consistent with the rights of others; and that 
all government was a political institution between men nat- 
urally equal, not for the aggrandizement of one or a few, 
but for the general happiness of the whole community." And 
so in 1776 they sent forth to the world the immortal Declara- 
tion of Independence, declaring: "We hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that 



11 

among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
That to secure these rights governments are instituted among 
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the gov- 
erned. ' ' As Thomas Paine said in ' ' Common Sense, ' ' a pamph- 
let whose influence in bringing on the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence can never be over-estimated, "The period of debate 
is closed. Arms in the last resource must decide the contest 
A new era for politics is struck. A new method of thinking 
has arisen. All plans and proposals prior to that Nineteenth 
of April are like the almanacs of last year." 

Thus the controversy between England and America, begin- 
ning in a difl'erence of opinion as to the construction of 
charters, ended in a contest which involved the fundamental 
principles of the rights of man. The controversy ceased to be 
a contest; it became a revolution; it ceased to seek an adjust- 
ment of rights between one people and another people who 
sought to govern them, and became a war for independence and 
nationality; and the principles established were not for the 
benefit of the American colonists alone, but for the political 
salvation of all mankind. 

It may seem strange that in so short a period as had elapsed 
from the enactment by Great Britain of the legislation to which 
the colonists objected to the year 1776, when the Declaration of 
Independence was declared, the American people in such im- 
portant respects apparently should have so completely changed 
the principles upon which they based their opposition to Great 
Britain. 

But if we bear in mind the condition of society in America, 
as I have previously described it, the isolation of the colonies 
from all the countries of Europe, together with the fact Of the 
great growth of their population and the increase of their 
commercial, manufacturing and social interests, it is not difficult 
to understand that since the early settlements a great change 
in public opinion with respect to the relation which they bore to 
the mother country inevitably must have arisen. 

For nearly half a century the question of the political rights 
of man had been agitated and discussed by the American 
people. They examined and discussed every political theory of 
the rights of man which the world had known, from the meta- 
physical writers of the French and Continental schools, ad- 
vocating at times unbridled liberty to the claims of arbitrary 



12 

power which rested on the doctrine of the divine right of kings. 

In the discussion of such questions the profession of the law 
naturally and inevitably took the leading part, because its fol- 
lowers were necessarily students of such questions, and best 
fitted, as a rule, to discuss them. The age of the minister had 
l)een succeeded by the age of the lawyer, an age which gave to 
the world Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall, of Virginia ; 
John and Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, and a host of 
others. 

Gradually, but steadily, the American mind had been work- 
ing itself out of the chaos of conflicting theories of govern- 
ment, and the rights of man, into a clear and definite conception, 
which it came to embody in such phrases as "All men are born 
free and equal ; " " Governments derive their just powers from 
the consent of the governed," and "Taxation without repre- 
sentation is tyranny." 

This conception had been reached only after slow and thor- 
ough consideration. Yet while the development had been slow, 
for this very reason it was sure of its ground, and had settled 
into a conviction that neither the argument of men nor the fear 
of kings could disturb. 

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a "revolu- 
tionary pronunciamento, " but a declaration of political prin- 
ciples which sooner or later must have been evolved from the 
conditions of American life. 

It is true that in indirectly recognizing the existence of 
slavery, the founders of the American government were untrue 
to the great principles which the Declaration of Independence 
announced; but the recognjition of slavery was a compromiise 
without which the national government could not have been 
formed; and the prophetic words of Jefferson on this subject, 
"I tremble for my country when I think that God is just," 
were justified by the great war of 1861-1865, which grew out of 
the slaveiy (juestion, and resulted in the emancipation of the 
slaves at a cost of life and treasure that staggered the world, 
thus proving that nations, no more than individuals, can violate 
with impunity the moral law, without in time suffering the 
punishment which the Creator of the universe attaches to all 
such violations. 

But with the emancipation of the slaves the nation no longer 
stood embarrassed by an institution in direct conflict with its 



13 

principles; and with the close of the war in 1865 a great dem- 
ocracy, purged of the only poison in its system, stood forth, for 
the first time in its history, entirely true to itself, because en- 
tirely true to its great principle that all men are born free and 
equal. 

From 1776 to the close of the Spanish-American War the 
Declaration of Independence constituted the political gospel of 
the American nation. None denied its truth, except as to 
negroes, and the result of this denial we have seen. Webster 
called it the "Charter of our Liberties," and Lincoln said it 
set up an ideal standard, toward which it was our purpose and 
duty to press with ever closer and closer realization. "If that 
Declaration is not the truth," he said, "let us get the statute 
hook in which wp find it anrl tear it out; let us stick to it then, 
let us stand firmly by it then." 

And throughout the whole world, wherever men hoped or 
struggled for liberty, it carried sympathy and strength. Buckle, 
the English historian, declared "That it should be hung in the 
nursery of every King and blazoned on the porch of every 
royal palace;" and in every struggle for liberty throughout the 
world, whether in Poland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, or 
the South American Republics, the American nation sent words 
of comfort, and inspiration, using the words of its own great 
Declaration. 

The period of time that has succeeded the Declaration of In- 
dependence has been in one respect the most remarkable in the 
history of the world. The discoveries and inventions of the 
Nineteenth Century have been more numerous and more im- 
portant than those made in the entire previous histoiy of the 
world. They have bettered the material and social condition of 
the world amazingly, and given an impetus to the life of the 
world along materialistic lines such as had never before been 
dreamed of. 

During this time the material prosperity of this country has 
moved forward with a volume and resistless force never before 
equalled in the history of the world. This result has been 
due to a variety of causes. First and foremost is the fact that 
our great E«public, offering a fair field to every one, has en- 
couraged the capable and ambitious among us and attracted 
from every country a vast emigration of the thrifty, the ener- 
getic and the ambitious ; and added to this cause has been the 



14 

newness ;ind vast extent of the country, with its Avejilth of farms 
and mines, the new and wonderful inventions, which increased 
its manufacturino,- intereslts, the budlding of railroads and 
canals and the practical and enterprising spirit of the people. 

As the minister was succeeded by the lawyer, so the lawyer 
has been succeeded by the business man as the most influential 
man in the country. 

As Mr. Herbert Spencer says, "The present condition of 
things appears to be in great measure a necessary accompani- 
ment of our great phase of progress. Throughout the civilized 
world, especially in England, and above all in America, social 
activity is almost wholly expended in material development. 
To subjugate nature and bring the powers of production and 
distribution to their highest perfection is the task of many ages ; 
and probably of many future ages. * * * The English na- 
tion at present displays what we may call the commercial dia- 
thesis, and the undue admiration for wealth appears to be its 
concomitant — a. relation still more conspicuous in the worship 
of the 'almighty dollar' by the Americans." 

It would be both interesting and instructive to observe the 
effect upon American art, literature and social life which the 
mad rush for wealth has had; but neither time nor the subject 
of this paper would justify such a departure. I shall direct 
your attention briefly, and in outline only, to the effect which 
this predominant effort of the age has had and is in danger of 
having in destroying our recognition of those great principles 
for which the American Revolution was fought. 

In the mad rush for trade and wealth which characterizes a 
materialistic age, the larger and stronger nations of the world 
are seeking under various pretexts, to seize and control the 
smaller and weaker nations, in order that they may be exploited 
for trade purposes. The w^ars of this age are not as of old, to 
make proselj'tes for some religion, or to make slaves of the 
conquered people, or to extract tribute from them, but to acquire 
foreign territory, which shall be so controlled in its trade and 
commerce as to add to the wealth of the conqueror. 

The war in progress to-night, between Russia and Japan, over 
Manchuria and Korea, two small and defenseless countries, 
owned by neither combatant, is an illustration of this spirit. 

I have come now to the period when, under the influence of 
the materialistic spirit of the age, by the Treaty of Paris, which 



15 

terminated the wai' between the United States and Spain, our 
great American Republic ceased to be a republic and became 
an empire; because a country which holds the people of an- 
other country as subjects is an empire, and none the less so 
because it does not rule as an empire at home. 

In view of the fact that I appear to-night upon your invi- 
tation as your guest, and that doubtless different opinions upon 
this subject are held among you, I forbear to discuss or even 
to refer to many phases of that great change, about which I 
feel most deeply and profoundly; and I shall state only such 
facts as are undisputed, and draw only such conclusions as one 
may feel himself reasonably entitled to draw in the presence 
of men whose ancestors fought the American Revolution, and 
gave forth the Declaration of Independence. 

The war with Spain was preceded by a declaration by Con- 
gress, which recognized as applicable to other nations those 
great principles upon which our own government rested. With 
a declaration from our own Declaration of Independence we 
announced to the world that the Cubans ' ' are and of right ought 
to be free and independent;" and in accordance with our time- 
honored policy, we disclaimed any intention to enter upon a 
war of conquest, but, on the contrary, declared that the result 
of our intervention, if successful, should be the freedom of 
Cuba. 

But by the Treaty of Peace with Spain we were not content 
to secure the freedom of Cuba, which had been the sole object 
sought by the war, but compelled Spain to cede to us Porto 
Rico and the Philippines. 

In every previous cession of territory to the United States 
the treaties provided that the new territory in the course of 
time should be admitted as states to the Union, and that its 
civilized inhabitants should be citizens of the United States. 
The act by which we acquired the vast territoiy to the north- 
west of the original thirteen colonies, as well as the Louisiana, 
Mexican, Florida, and Alaskan treaties, all bear witness to this 
fact. In the cession of Porto Rico and the Philippines these 
provisions were significantly omitted. 

By the acquisition of these islands, to use the language of Mr. 
Moorfield Storey, "Our country to-day exercises absolute power 
over more than ten millions of human beings— twice as many as 
the whole population of the United States a centuiy ago. Our 



16 

dominion has boon established withont consulting them and 
against such resistance as they could make. They are not 
American citizens, nor will we ever allow them to become such. 
They are governed by the President and Congress, but they 
have no voice in the choice of either. They have no recognized 
rights under our Constitution ; and if the President, by execu- 
tive order, or Congress, by statute, grants them any of the 
rights secured to ourselves by the Constitution, such grants are 
merely privileges, which may be recalled with pleasure by a new 
order or a new statute. They have no representation in the 
Congress which taxes them and controls their destiny. In a 
word, no part of the government under which they live derives 
its power from their consent. They are merely subjects of the 
United States." 

We have taken, with respect to these people, the position 
which England took with respect to the American people, and 
which was stated in the Declaratory Act, which was a part of 
the act repealing the Stamp Act that it had, and of right 
ought to have, power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever ; 
and we have made it a crime to publicly read the Declaration 
of Independence in the Philippines. 

And the people of the Philippine Islands, in resisting our 
claim and in fighting for their independence and nationality, 
for a government of their people, by their people and for their 
people, for a government deriving its just powers from the 
consent of the governed, have occupied the position which the 
United States and our ancestors occupied in the American 
Revolution towards the British Government. 

The position of the people of the Philippine Islands is 
strengthened, too, by the facts that the American colonists de- 
rived their rights by direct grants from the English sovereigns, 
and acknowledged allegiance to the English Government; while 
the people of the Philippine Islands had settled their country 
centuries before the first American colonists had landed in 
America ; that they had never acknowledged allegiance to or 
connection with us; and that our sole title to rule over them is 
a purchase in money from an overthrown monarchy, which they 
had helped us to overthrow. 

The English Government was a monarchy, and the English 
people believed in monarchial principles. The American Gov- 



17 

ernment is a republic, and has always professed to believe in 
the right of every people to govern themselves. 

Many well-meaning persons among us have justified our 
course upon the theory that the people of the Philippines and 
Porto Rico are an inferior people and incapable of self-govern- 
ment, and that no other course was open to us than that which 
has been followed. We have been told that the people of the 
Philippines are to be likened to Apaches and Boxers, although 
"there were two thousand one hundred schools in the islands 
and five thousand students in attendance at the Manila Uni- 
versity; although they had established a government modelled 
after our own; their state papers would have done credit to 
any nation, and they inaugurated good judicial, school and 
revenue systems and preserved law and order;" and although 
the United States census, just completed in these islands, shows 
that ninety-five per cent of them are Christians and civilized; 
and the uncivilized tribes are fewer in proportion than were 
the -tribes of Indians at the time of the establishment of our 
Republic. 

Our Civil Commission, too, has found it impossible to make 
progress in the government of these islands, except by relying 
upon the ability for self-government, which these people pos- 
sess. "They have added three native members to that Com- 
mission; have appointed three Filipino judges of the Supreme 
Court; have appointed a Solicitor General and many other 
officers from the natives ; and have selected about half the judges 
of the first instance and nearly all the governors of the pro- 
vinces from that race." 

But, assuming that the people of these islands are inferior to 
us, it does not follow that they are incapable of self-govern- 
ment. In urging the recognition of the South American Re- 
publics, in 1822, Henry Clay declared: 

"But it is sometimes said that they are too ignorant to admit 
of the existence of free government. * * * I contend that 
it is to arraign the dispositions of the Almighty to suppose that 
He has created beings incapable of governing themselves. * * * 
Self-government is the natural government of men." And 
Mr. Lincoln said: "No man is good enough to govern another 
without the other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, 
the sheet anchor of American Republicanism;" and John Hay 



18 

once said, speaking of self-government; "No people are fit for 
anything else." 

And in words that are directly applicable to the present crisis 
Mr. Lincoln said : 

"These arguments that are made, that the inferior race are 
to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of 
enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condi- 
tion will allow ; what are those arguments. They are the argu- 
ments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all 
ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in 
favor of king-craft were of this class. They always bestrode the 
necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but be- 
cause the people were better for being ridden. That is their ar- 
gument, and this argument is the same old serpent that says, 
'You work and I eat; you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.' 
Turn in whatever way you will, whether it come from the mouth 
of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or 
from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the 
men of another race, it is all the same old serpent." 

To establish a permanent colonial relationship between the 
United States and the people of our so-called island posses- 
sions, is to abandon the principles for which the American Rev- 
olution was fought, and to amend the Declaration of our own 
Independence. 

Only, as in the case of Cuba, by a declaration that we are in 
those islands to establish a stable government, whether the 
time be short or long, and that when we have done so, we intend 
to recognize the independence of the people of those islands, and 
to turn over the government of their country into their hands, 
can we be true to those great principles for which our ancestors 
of the Revolution fought, and which for one hundred and twen- 
ty-five years have inspired our political life. 

Had we done this at the outset, there would have been no war, 
and over one million lives, lost in war and in the pestilence 
and famine which follow in the wake of war, and six hundred 
millions in money, with millions yet to be spent, would have 
been saved. 

If the great principles of this government were true in 1776 ; 
if they have been true through nearly two centuries of national 
life, they are true to-day, and will be in the generations still to 
come. Who will say that they are not? Their truth at times 



19 

may be denied or obscured by fallacious arguments; but they 
are working in every nation, among every people, silently, but 
immutably, like the eternal laws of nature itself. 

These principles demand that either these alien people of 
Porto Rico and the Philippines be made citizens of the United 
States, or that they be allowed their freedom. There is no half- 
way course consistent with our principles; and as these people 
are unsuited for assimilation into our Anglo-Saxon family, 
we should immediately declare that as soon as they have estab- 
lished a stable government, which we should assist them in es- 
tablishing, they will be given that freedom for which we fought 
in 1776, which we declared in 1898 the Cubans were entitled 
to, and which our political principles have always declared to 
be the right of every man in every clime. 

There has come to the nation a great temptation. As the ma- 
terialistic spirit nineteen hundred yeai-s ago is said to have taken 
up to a high mountain the purest soul in the universe and prom- 
ised it untold wealth if it would be untrue to itself and follow 
it, so to-day it has taken the greatest of nations, whose 
principles are the purest in the world, to another height and 
promised it the mystic wealth of the Orient if it will abandon 
its principles and follow it. Let us, too, be strong enough and 
great enough to say: "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an 
offense unto me," 

If we fail in this hour of trial, as certain as the curse of slavery 
brought untold misery upon us, and every drop of blood drawn 
by the lash was paid by another drawn by the sword, so must we 
again for each wrong inflicted again make reparation until the 
uttermost farthing is paid, for, ' ' The judgments of the Lord are 
true and righteous altogether." "As our fathers brought forth 
upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, and ded- 
icated to the proposition that all men are created equal," it is 
for us to preserve this great inheritance and hand it down unim- 
paired to the generations that are to come; resolving "that 
those who died for liberty in the past shall not have died in vain ; 
that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, 
and that government of the people, for the people and by the 
people shall not perish from the earth." 

Let us not forget, but remember and follow the just and wise 
admonition of Washington, who, in his farewell address to the 
American people, said, ' ' Observe good faith and justice towards 



20 

all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and 
morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does 
not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, 
and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the 
magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided 
by an exalted justice and l)eneYolence. * * * * * It is our 
true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of 
the foreign world." 

The lessons of history are manifest. Let us not deceive 
ourselves. It is only those acts of nations and of men which 
make for righteousness and justice, for truth and freedom, 
that merit and receive the love and reverence of mankind. At 
the impartial bar of history, its irrevocable judgments know no 
standards but these. 

Let us not stand with George III. and Lord North; let us stand 
with Chatham, Burke and Charles Fox : with Washington, whose 
bii'thday we celebrate to-night; with Jefferson and Adams; with 
Lincoln and Sumni r. Lei us no1 seek the temporary p.inip and 
tinsel and power of the conqueror. Imt that greater, truer and 
mo7-e permanment glory which ever attends the liberator. 

The ancestors whose memory we celebrate to-night fought, 
in the principles involved, as great, if not the greatest, war that 
the history of the world records. It was fought not alone for 
themselves and their descendants, but for all humanity; and 
never since then has the contest for liberty in any land seemed 
hopeless. 

No men in all the world to-day can point with greater and 
juster pride to their ancestors than those who are gathered here 
to-night. Let us not be content by merely worshiping their 
memory, but let us receive the birthright of liberty which they 
gave us as a sacred trust to be preserved and extended to those 
who follow us; and whenever and wherever we may, let us hold 
aloft the torch of liberty to others, that in their struggles the 
way may be enlightened to a future free and glorious. 

"God be with us as He was with our fathers." 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 801 




113 2* 



